DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined below.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication device configured to receive…” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent No. 12424109 in view of US20200168106. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of US Patent document in view of US20200168106 are listed in the table below.
Instant Application
US Patent 12424109
US20200168106
claim 1
claim 1
n/a
claim 2
claim 2
n/a
claim 3
claim 3
n/a
claim 4
claim 4
n/a
claim 5
claim 5
paragraph 0049
claim 6
claim 6
n/a
claim 7
claim 7
n/a
claim 8
claim 8
n/a
claim 9
claim 9
n/a
claim 10
claim 10
n/a
claim 11
claim 11
n/a
claim 12
claim 12
paragraph 0049
claim 13
claim 13
n/a
claim 14
claim 14
n/a
claim 15
claim 15
n/a
claim 16
claim 16
n/a
claim 17
claim 17
n/a
claim 18
claim 18
n/a
claim 19
claim 19
paragraph 0049
claim 20
claim 20
n/a
US Patent No. 12424109 and US20200168106 both disclose systems of determining optimal cruise altitude based on fuel flow. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in US Patent No. 12424109 to include the teaching of US20200168106 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to relieve the pilot of some of the cognitive burden of flying the aircraft manually.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by US5574647 (“Liden”).
Claim 1
Liden discloses a method (abstract) comprising:
receiving flight plan information for an aircraft (col. 4 lines 7-12 The atmosphere data used by the aircraft drag and engine models is based on the ISA (International Standard Atmosphere). Deviations from the ISA temperature as well as winds are part of the weather forecast data and may be entered in the flight plan, and become part of the atmosphere model used at future points in the flight plan., col. 1 lines 17-21 An FMS accepts pilot-entered input data that represents a flight plan from the origin airport to the destination airport. A flight plan is composed mostly of a sequence of waypoints that define the horizontal flight path., claim 1);
generating a least cost altitude recommendation for the aircraft based on the flight plan information and a fuel flow model previously generated for the aircraft (claim 1: C. Calculating the Specific Cost for each such determined legal altitude utilizing the equation: SpCost=(if+k)/vg where SpCost is cost/unit distance, ff is fuel flow as determined from a function of air speed, altitude, temperature and gross weight, k is the non-fuel cost per unit time divided by the fuel cost/unit weight and vg is ground speed as determined from a function of true air speed and wind direction and velocity; D. Selecting a candidate legal altitude at which SpCost, calculated in step C is the lowest;, col. 3 lines 52-61 More specifically, an FMS includes a mathematical model for computing ff in order to perform prediction, even without the benefits of this invention. This model is usually specified by the engine manufacturer and differs for each engine type and manufacturer. The ff model typically includes several data tables that have been derived experimentally. The ff model and data are usually proprietary to the engine manufacturer and may be reproduced only by permission. Some FMS's include models for more than one engine type, for aircraft that use various types of engines., claim 3: a flight management computer having a first plurality of inputs including a flight plan, a cost index and weather forecast data; a second plurality of inputs representing the state variables of the aircraft flight connected to the computer; said computer receiving the inputs and predicting (simulating) flight along the flight plan and computing the cost per unit time for each legal altitude), wherein generating the least cost altitude recommendation plan comprises:
generating a plurality of test altitude recommendation plans, each based on a different candidate cruise altitude (claim 1: A. Determining the maximum and minimum permitted altitudes at the end of the interval; B. Determining the legal altitudes from the minimum to the maximum altitudes at the end of the interval;, col. 4 lines 45-55) and each generated by:
predicting a fuel cost for the aircraft based on an estimated fuel flow, from the fuel flow model, and the flight plan information to produce a predicted fuel cost (col. 3 lines 25-35 Direct Operating Cost for a given ground distance is then given by the equation: ##EQU1## or by changing the variable of integration from time to distance: ##EQU2## where cf=unit cost of fuel ($/lb or $/kg); (16) ff=fuel flow (lb/hr or kg/hr); (17) k=Cost Index scaled to units of ff; (18) te=elapsed time (hr); (19) xg=ground distance (nmi); (20) vg=ground speed (kn); (21) The integrand of Equation (2) is referred to as the Specific Cost (SpCost):(22) SpCost=(ff+k)/vg(lb/nmi or kg/nmi) (3), col. 2 lines 62-67 The optimum cruise altitude for an aircraft is the altitude that minimizes the Direct Operating Cost (DOC) of flight for a given ground distance. DOC, as used herein, is defined as the cost of the consumed fuel plus other costs that are proportional to flight time.);
predicting a time cost based on an estimated operating cost per hour and an estimated flight time to produce a predicted time cost (col. 3 lines 25-35 Direct Operating Cost for a given ground distance is then given by the equation: ##EQU1## or by changing the variable of integration from time to distance: ##EQU2## where cf=unit cost of fuel ($/lb or $/kg); (16) ff=fuel flow (lb/hr or kg/hr); (17) k=Cost Index scaled to units of ff; (18) te=elapsed time (hr); (19) xg=ground distance (nmi); (20) vg=ground speed (kn); (21) The integrand of Equation (2) is referred to as the Specific Cost (SpCost):(22) SpCost=(ff+k)/vg(lb/nmi or kg/nmi) (3), col. 2 lines 62-67 The optimum cruise altitude for an aircraft is the altitude that minimizes the Direct Operating Cost (DOC) of flight for a given ground distance. DOC, as used herein, is defined as the cost of the consumed fuel plus other costs that are proportional to flight time., col. 3 lines 25-35 equation with all relevant variables, col. 3 lines 1-5 "Cost Index" which is defined for English units as the non-fuel dollars per hour divided by 100 times the fuel dollars per pound and gives units of 100 pounds per hour); and
determining a total cost based on the predicted time cost and the predicted fuel cost (claim 1: C. Calculating the Specific Cost for each such determined legal altitude utilizing the equation: SpCost=(if+k)/vg where
SpCost is cost/unit distance, ff is fuel flow as determined from a function of air speed, altitude, temperature and gross weight, k is the non-fuel cost per unit time divided by the fuel cost/unit weight and vg is ground speed as determined from a function of true air speed and wind direction and velocity;, col. 1 lines 30-35 The optimum altitude is defined as the altitude that minimizes cost (a combination of fuel cost and time cost, to be described below), and depends on aircraft gross weight, speed, wind and air temperature); and
selecting one of the plurality of test altitude recommendations plans, associated with the lowest total cost, as the least cost altitude recommendation plan (claim 1: D. Selecting a candidate legal altitude at which SpCost, calculated in step C is the lowest; E. Comparing the candidate legal altitude from step D with the altitude of the current state; and
E1. If they are the same, continuing normal prediction without changing altitudes; or E2. If the candidate legal altitude is different than the altitude of the current prediction state, determining determine and saving a point in the prediction interval as the candidate step climb point the point being where specific costs at the prediction state altitude and the SpCost at the candidate legal altitude are equal; F. Predicting the direct operating cost of the flight for each of the legal altitudes of step B by performing a trial prediction over a pre-determined distance interval for each such legal altitude:);
outputting the least cost altitude recommendation plan to a flight management computer (col. 8 lines 55-65 The computer will periodically update the forecast flight profile based on the new initial state values and generate new step climbs or descents in accordance with the methods described above. The current wind and temperature input 65 adjusts the forecast in the vicinity of the aircraft to improve the predictions a reletively short distance in front of the current aircraft position and is then blended out at further diastances. The newly generated profile is transmitted to a suitable display 66 via an output 68 so that the pilot may cause the aircraft to change altitude to a new level at the step point if he desires.); and
executing, via the flight management computer, flight operations of the aircraft based on the least cost altitude recommendation plan (claim 3: said computer receiving the inputs and predicting (simulating) flight along the flight plan and computing the cost per unit time for each legal altitude between a predetermined minimum and maximum altitude from the equation SpCost=(ff+k)/vg where ff is fuel flow and a function of air speed, altitude, temperature and gross weight, k is a constant cost index scaled to the units of ff and vg is ground speed and a function of true air speed and forecast wind direction and velocity, said computer selecting the altitude which has the least cost.).
Claim 6
Liden discloses wherein outputting the altitude recommendation plan comprises sending the least cost altitude recommendation plan to a flight management system of the aircraft (claim 1: C. Calculating the Specific Cost for each such determined legal altitude utilizing the equation: SpCost=(if+k)/vg where SpCost is cost/unit distance, ff is fuel flow as determined from a function of air speed, altitude, temperature and gross weight, k is the non-fuel cost per unit time divided by the fuel cost/unit weight and vg is ground speed as determined from a function of true air speed and wind direction and velocity; D. Selecting a candidate legal altitude at which SpCost, calculated in step C is the lowest;, claim 3: said computer selecting the altitude which has the least cost., col. 3 lines 50-60 FMS).
Claim(s) 8, 13, 15 and 20
Claim(s) 8, 13, 15 and 20 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 1, 6, 1 and 6, respectively, and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Liden in view of US20220252401 (“Lupu”).
Claim 2
Liden fails to disclose receiving flight data for the aircraft from a plurality of previous flights; and generating the fuel flow model for the aircraft based on the flight data and a fuel flow model based on a type of the aircraft. However, Liden does disclose the fuel flow model (col. 3 lines 50-60). Furthermore, Lupu teaches a system for optimizing a flight plan (abstract), including:
receiving flight data for the aircraft from a plurality of previous flights (0050 functional module D 306 makes it possible to determine the performance of the aircraft in terms of fuel consumption specific to the aircraft, namely performance taking into account the past and the wear and tear of the aircraft. In other words, the functional module D 306 makes it possible to determine a fuel consumption model specific to the aircraft, based on the flight data (obtained from the database 302, but using only the flight data relating to the aircraft in question).); and
generating the fuel flow model for the aircraft based on the flight data and a fuel flow model based on a type of the aircraft (0050 functional module D 306 makes it possible to determine the performance of the aircraft in terms of fuel consumption specific to the aircraft, namely performance taking into account the past and the wear and tear of the aircraft. In other words, the functional module D 306 makes it possible to determine a fuel consumption model specific to the aircraft, based on the flight data (obtained from the database 302, but using only the flight data relating to the aircraft in question).).
Liden and Lupu both disclose fuel flow models for aircraft. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Liden to include the teaching of Lupu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more accurately model the fuel flow for the flight by using past flight data.
Claim(s) 9 and 16
Claim(s) 9 and 16 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 2 and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Liden in view of Lupu, in further view of KR20190115596 (“Cho”).
Claim 3
Liden discloses:
generating the altitude recommendation plan based on the estimated fuel flow (claim 1, claim 3).
Liden fails to disclose inserting the flight data into a neural network; and generating an estimated fuel flow based on output from the neural network after inserting the flight data into the neural network. However, Liden does disclose generating the altitude recommendation plan based on the estimated fuel flow (claim 1, claim 3). Furthermore, Cho teaches a system of improving flights plans, including:
inserting the flight data into a neural network (0023 an aircraft fuel consumption prediction system is configured based on neural networks (NN) to predict fuel consumption of an aircraft, and the neural network can be repeatedly learned by generating data in which the speed and altitude of the aircraft are input and the fuel consumption is output through a hidden layer.); and
generating an estimated fuel flow based on output from the neural network after inserting the flight data into the neural network (0023 an aircraft fuel consumption prediction system is configured based on neural networks (NN) to predict fuel consumption of an aircraft, and the neural network can be repeatedly learned by generating data in which the speed and altitude of the aircraft are input and the fuel consumption is output through a hidden layer.).
Liden and Cho both disclose systems of determining fuel flow in an aircraft system. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Liden to include the teaching of Cho with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the performance of pattern recognition and prediction in the fuel flow, thus improving the likelihood of selecting the optimal altitude plan.
Claim 4
Liden discloses:
wherein the flight data includes at least one of corrected gross weight of the aircraft, center-of-gravity of the aircraft, and at least one of altitude, airspeed, international standard atmosphere deviation, temperature, and wind at a plurality of locations for the plurality of previous flights (col. 1 lines 55-65 In order to present to the pilot information about future points in the flight, such as arrival time and distance to go at future waypoints, and locations of future step climb points, a process called "prediction" is performed by the FMS. The prediction process simulates future flight by advancing a set of state variables, S, starting at the current aircraft state, along the flight plan, to the destination. A typical set of state variables are: time, distance to destination, altitude, gross weight, true air speed and flight path angle. Other sets can be used. The prediction is computed in fast time to provide downpath information to the pilot as quickly as possible.).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 17 and 18
Claim(s) 10, 11, 17 and 18 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 3, 4, 3 and 4, respectively, and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Liden in view of US20200168106 (“De Prins”).
Claim 5
Liden fails to disclose wherein the flight management computer executes the flight operations of the aircraft, based on the least cost altitude recommendation plan, via auto piloting. However, Liden does disclose executing flight operations (claim 3). Furthermore, De Prins teaches a system of selecting a cruise altitude for an aircraft based on fuel flow (0007, 0044), including:
wherein the flight management computer executes the flight operations of the aircraft, based on the least cost altitude recommendation plan, via auto piloting (0049 The trajectory prediction process can start at any point in any phase of flight, and modifies its process methods/components as appropriate to the available aircraft state and flight information. After the application of environmental data, the trajectory predictions are recalculated. The output of the flight trajectory predictor is the predicted trajectory that includes a vertical profile. The predicted trajectory is stored in the flight object. The pilot or autopilot may then fly the aircraft by following the predicted trajectory as closely as possible.).
Liden and De Prins both disclose determining optimal cruising altitude for an aircraft based on fuel flow and other factors. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Liden to include the teaching of De Prins with a reasonable expectation of success in order to relieve the pilot of some of the cognitive burden of flying the aircraft manually.
Claim 7
Liden discloses:
wherein sending the least cost altitude recommendation plan comprises transmitting the altitude recommendation plan to the flight management system of the aircraft (claim 1: C. Calculating the Specific Cost for each such determined legal altitude utilizing the equation: SpCost=(if+k)/vg where SpCost is cost/unit distance, ff is fuel flow as determined from a function of air speed, altitude, temperature and gross weight, k is the non-fuel cost per unit time divided by the fuel cost/unit weight and vg is ground speed as determined from a function of true air speed and wind direction and velocity; D. Selecting a candidate legal altitude at which SpCost, calculated in step C is the lowest;, claim 3: said computer selecting the altitude which has the least cost., col. 3 lines 50-60 FMS).
Liden fails to disclose wherein the transmitting is performed wirelessly. Furthermore, De Prins teaches wirelessly transmitting the altitude recommendation plan to the flight management system of the aircraft (claim 15: wherein the electronic device is configured to receive through an input device a new optimal flight cruise altitude set by the aircraft pilot in view of the trajectory change alert, and wherein the communications unit is a wireless communications unit wirelessly coupled with a flight management system of the aircraft, the wireless communications unit being configured to communicate the new optimal flight cruise altitude to the flight management system.).
See prior art rejection of claim 5 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim(s) 12, 14 and 19
Claim(s) 12, 14 and 19 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 5, 7 and 5, respectively, and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights